Speech Delivered at a Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and the
Central Control Commission, C.P.S.U.(B.)2, July 15, 1926;First published: J. Stalin, On the Opposition, Articles and Speeches, 1921-27, Moscow and Leningrad, 1928;Source: J. V. Stalin, On the Opposition, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1974.NOTE: Footnotes are from J. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 8, January-November, 1926.Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954.The text in the Peking edition is the same as the Moscow edition.

Comrades, we are passing through a period of the accumulation
of forces, a period of winning over the masses and of preparing the
proletariat for new battles. But the masses are in the trade unions. And in
the West the trade unions, the majority of them, are now more or less
reactionary. What, then, should be our attitude towards the trade unions?
Should we, can we, as Communists, work in the reactionary trade unions? It is
essentially this question that Trotsky put to us in his letter recently
published in Pravda. There is nothing new, of course, in this question.
It was raised before Trotsky by the "ultra-Lefts" in Germany, some five years
ago. But Trotsky has seen fit to raise it again. How does he answer it? Permit
me to quote a passage from Trotsky's letter:

"The entire present 'superstructure' of the British working
class, in all its shades and groupings without exception, is an apparatus for
putting a brake on the revolution. This presages for a long time to come the
pressure of the spontaneous and semi-spontaneous movement on the framework
of the old organisations and the formation of new, revolutionary
organisations as the result of this pressure" (see Pravda, No. 119,
May 26, 1926).

It follows from this that we ought not to work in the "old"
organisations, if we do not want to "retard" the revolution. Either what is
meant here is that we are already in the period of a direct revolutionary
situation and ought at once to set up self-authorised organisations of the
proletariat in place of the "old" ones, in place of the trade
unions -- which, of course, is incorrect and foolish. Or what is meant here is
that "for a long time to come" we ought to work to replace the old trade
unions by "new, revolutionary organisations."

This is a signal to organise, in place of the existing
trade unions, that same "Revolutionary Workers' Union" which the "ultra-Left"
Communists in Germany advocated some five years ago, and which Comrade Lenin
vigorously opposed in his pamphlet "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile
Disorder. It is in point of fact a signal to replace the present trade
unions by "new," supposedly "revolutionary" organisations, a signal,
consequently, to withdraw from the trade unions.

Is that policy correct? It is fundamentally incorrect. It is
fundamentally incorrect because it runs counter to the Leninist method of
leading the masses. It is incorrect because, for all their reactionary
character, the trade unions of the West are the most elementary organisations
of the proletariat, those best understood by the most backward workers, and
therefore the most comprehensive organisations of the proletariat. We cannot
find our way to the masses, we cannot win them over if we by-pass these trade
unions. To adopt Trotsky's standpoint would mean that the road to the vast masses would be
barred to the Communists, that the working-class masses would be handed over
to the tender mercies of Amsterdam3, to the tender mercies of the Sassenbachs and the
Oudegeests.4

"We cannot but regard also as ridiculous and childish
nonsense the pompous, very learned, and frightfully revolutionary talk of the
German Lefts to the effect that Communists cannot and should not work in
reactionary trade unions, that it is permissible to turn down such work, that
it is necessary to leave the trade unions and to create without fail a
brand-new, immaculate 'Workers' Union' invented by very nice (and, probably,
for the most part very youthful) Communists" (see Vol. XXV, pp. 193-94).

And further:

"We wage the struggle against the 'labour aristocracy' in the
name of the masses of the workers and in order to win them to our side; we
wage the struggle against the opportunist and social-chauvinist leaders in
order to win the working class to our side. To forget this most elementary and
most self-evident truth would be stupid. And it is precisely this stupidity
that the German 'Left' Communists are guilty of when, because of the
reactionary and counter-revolutionary character of the trade-union top
leadership, they jump to the conclusion that -- we must leave the trade
unions!! that we must refuse to work in them!! that we must create new,
artificial forms of labour organisation!! This is such unpardonable
stupidity that it is equivalent to the greatest service the Communists could
render the bourgeoisie" (ibid., p. 196).

I think, comrades, that comment is superfluous.

This raises the question of skipping over the reactionary
character of the trade unions in the West, which has not yet been outlived.
This question was brought forward at the rostrum here by Zinoviev.
He quoted Martov and assured us that the point of
view opposed to skipping over, the point of view that it is not permissible
for Marxists to skip over and ignore the backwardness of the masses, the
backwardness and reactionariness of their leaders, is a Menshevik point of
view.

I affirm, comrades, that this unscrupulous manoeuvre of
Zinoviev's in citing Martov is evidence of one thing only -- Zinoviev's
complete departure from the Leninist line.

I shall endeavour to prove this in what follows.

Can we, as Leninists, as Marxists, at all skip over and
ignore a movement that has not outlived its day, can we skip over and ignore
the backwardness of the masses, can we turn our back on them and pass them by;
or ought we to get rid of such features by carrying on an unrelaxing
fight against them among the masses? That is one of the fundamental questions
of communist policy, one of the fundamental questions of Leninist leadership
of the masses. The oppositionists spoke here of Leninism. Let us turn to the
prime source, to Lenin.

It was in April 1917. Lenin was in controversy with Kamenev.
Lenin did not agree with Kamenev, who overestimated the role of
petty-bourgeois democracy. But Lenin was not in agreement with Trotsky either,
who underestimated the role of the peasant movement and "skipped over" the
peasant movement in Russia. Here are Lenin's words:

"Trotskyism says: 'No tsar, but a workers' government.' That
is incorrect. The petty bourgeoisie exists, and it cannot be left out of
account. But it consists of two sections. The poorer section follows the
working class" (see Lenin's speech in the minutes of the Petrograd Conference
of April 1917, p, 175).

"Now, if we were to say, 'no tsar, but a dictatorship of the
proletariat,' that would be skipping over * the petty bourgeoisie" (see
Lenin's speech in the minutes of the All-Russian Conference of April 1917, p.
766).

And further:

"But are we not incurring the danger of succumbing to
subjectivism, of desiring to 'skip over' the uncompleted
bourgeois-democratic revolution -- which has not yet outlived the peasant
movement -- to a socialist revolution? I should be incurring that danger if I
had said: 'No tsar, but a workers' government.' But I did not
say that; I said something else. . . . I absolutely insured myself in my
theses against any skipping over the peasant movement, or the
petty-bourgeois movement generally, which has not yet outlived its
day, against any playing at the 'seizure of power' by a workers'
government, against Blanquist adventurism in any shape or form, for I
pointed directly to the experience of the Paris Commune" (see Vol. XX, p. 104).

That is clear, one would think. The theory of skipping
over a movement which has not outlived its day is a Trotskyist theory.
Lenin does not agree with this theory. He considers it an adventurist one.

And here are a few more quotations, this time from other
writings -- from those of a "very prominent" Bolshevik whose name I do not
want to mention for the present, but who also takes up arms against the
skipping-over theory.

"In the question of the peasantry, which Trotsky is always
trying to 'skip over,' we would have committed the most egregious blunders.
Instead of the beginnings of a bond with the peasants, there would now be
thoroughgoing estrangement from them."

Further:

"Such is the 'theoretical' foundation of Parvusism and
Trotskyism. This 'theoretical' foundation was later minted into political
slogans, such as: 'no tsar, but a workers' government.' This slogan sounds
very plausible now that after a lapse of fifteen years we have achieved Soviet
power in alliance with the peasantry. No tsar -- that's fine! A workers'
government -- better still! But if it be recalled that this slogan was put
forward in 1905, every Bolshevik will agree that at that time it
meant 'skipping over' the peasantry altogether."

Further:

"But in 1905 the 'permanentists' wanted to foist on us the
slogan: 'Down with the tsar and up with a workers' government!' But
what about the peasantry? Does it not stare one in the face, this complete
non-comprehension and ignoring of the peasantry in a country like Russia? If
this is not 'skipping over' the peasantry, then what is it?"

Further:

"Failing to understand the role of the peasantry in Russia,
'skipping over' the peasantry in a peasant country, Trotskyism was all the
more incapable of understanding the role of the peasantry in the international
revolution."

Who, you will ask, is the author of these formidable passages
against Trotskyism and the Trotskyist skipping-over theory? The author of
these formidable passages is none other than Zinoviev. They are taken from his
book Leninism, and from his article "Bolshevism or Trotskyism?"

How could it happen that a year ago Zinoviev realised the
anti-Leninist character of the skipping-over theory, but has ceased to realise
it now, a year later? The reason is that he was then, so to speak, a
Leninist, but has now got himself hopelessly bogged, with one leg
in Trotskyism and the other in Shlyapnikovism, in the "Workers'
Opposition."7 And here he is,
floundering between these two oppositions, and compelled now to speak here
from this rostrum, quoting Martov. Against whom is he speaking? Against Lenin.
And for whom is he speaking? For the Trotskyists.

To such depths has Zinoviev fallen.

It may be said that all this concerns the question of the
peasantry, but has no bearing on the British trade unions. But that is not so,
comrades. What has been said about the unsuitability in politics of the
skipping-over theory has a direct bearing on the trade
unions in Britain, and in Europe generally; it has a direct bearing on the
question of leadership of the masses, on the question of the ways and means of
emancipating them from the influence of reactionary, reformist leaders.
Pursuing their skipping-over theory, Trotsky and Zinoviev are trying to skip
over the backwardness, the reactionariness of the British trade unions, trying
to get us to overthrow the General Council from Moscow, without the
British trade-union masses. But we affirm that such a policy is stupidity,
adventurism; that the reactionary leaders of the British trade-union movement
must be overthrown by the British trade-union masses themselves,
with our help ; that we must not skip over the reactionary character of
the trade-union leaders, but must help the British trade-union masses
to get rid of it.

You will see that there certainly is a connection between
policy in general and policy towards the trade-union masses.

Has Lenin anything on this point?

Listen to this:

"The trade unions were a tremendous step forward for the
working class in the early days of capitalist development, as marking the
transition from the disunity and helplessness of the workers to the
rudiments of class organisation. When the highest form of
proletarian class association began to develop, viz., the revolutionary
party of the proletariat (which will not deserve the name until it learns
to bind the leaders with the class and the masses into one single indissoluble
whole), the trade unions inevitably began to reveal certain reactionary
features, a certain craft narrowness, a certain tendency to be non-political,
a certain inertness, etc. But the development of the proletariat did not, and
could not, proceed anywhere in the world otherwise than through the trade
unions, through interaction between them and the party of the working class'
(see Vol. XXV, p. 194). [Lenin, "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. VI.
Should Revolutionaries Work in Reactionary Trade Unions? (1920)]

And further:

"To fear this 'reactionariness,' to try to avoid it,
to skip over it, is the
height of folly, for it means fearing that role of the proletarian vanguard
which consists in training, educating, enlightening and drawing into the new
life the most backward strata and masses of the working class and peasantry"
(ibid., p. 195).

That is how matters stand with the skipping-over theory as
applied to the trade-union movement.

Zinoviev would have done better not to come forward here
quoting Martov. He would have done better to say nothing about the
skipping-over theory. That would have been much better for his own sake. There
was no need for Zinoviev to swear by Trotsky: we know as it is that he has
deserted Leninism for Trotskyism.

That is how matters stand, comrades, with the Trotskyist
theory of skipping over the backwardness of the trade unions, the backwardness
of the trade-union movement, and the backwardness of the mass movement in
general.

Leninism is one thing, Trotskyism is another.

This brings us to the question of the Anglo-Russian
Committee. It has been said here that the Anglo-Russian Committee is an
agreement, a bloc between the trade unions of our country and the British
trade unions. That is perfectly true. The Anglo-Russian Committee is the
expression of a bloc, of an agreement between our unions and the British
unions, and this bloc is not without its political character.

This bloc sets itself two tasks. The first is to establish
contact between our trade unions and the British trade unions, to organise a
united movement against the capitalist offensive to widen the fissure between
Amsterdam and the British trade union movement, a fissure which exists and
which we shall widen in every
way, and, lastly, to bring about the conditions essential for ousting the
reformists from the trade unions and for winning over the trade unions of the
capitalist countries to the side of communism.

The second task of the bloc is to organise a broad movement
of the working class against new imperialist wars in general, and against
intervention in our country by (especially) the most powerful of the European
imperialist powers, by Britain in particular.

The first task was discussed here at adequate length, and,
therefore, I shall not dwell upon it. I should like to say a few words here
about the second task, especially as regards intervention in our country by
the British imperialists. Some of the oppositionists say that this second task
of the bloc between our trade unions and the British is not worth talking
about, that it is of no importance. Why, one asks? Why is it not worth talking
about? Is not the task of safeguarding the security of the first Soviet
Republic in the world, which is moreover the bulwark and base of the
international revolution, a revolutionary task? Are our trade unions
independent of the Party? Is our view that of the independence of our trade
unions -- that the state is one thing, and the trade unions another? No, as
Leninists, we do not and cannot hold that view. It should be the concern of
every worker, of every worker organised in a trade union, to protect the first
Soviet Republic in the world from intervention. And if in this the trade
unions of our country have the support of the British trade unions, although
they are reformist unions, is that not obviously something to be welcomed?

Those who think that our unions cannot deal with state
matters go over to the standpoint of Menshevism. That is the standpoint of Sotsialistichesky Vestnik.8 It is not one we can accept. And if the
reactionary trade unions of Britain are prepared to join with the
revolutionary trade unions of our country in a bloc against the
counter-revolutionary imperialists of their country, why should we not welcome
such a bloc? I stress this aspect of the matter in order that our opposition
may at last understand that in trying to torpedo the Anglo-Russian Committee
it is playing into the hands of the interventionists.

Hence, the Anglo-Russian Committee is a bloc of our trade
unions with the reactionary trade unions of Britain, the object of which is,
firstly, to strengthen the connections between our trade unions and the
trade-union movement of the West and to revolutionise the latter, and,
secondly, to wage a struggle against imperialist wars in general, and
intervention in particular.

But -- and this is a question of principle -- are political
blocs with reactionary trade unions possible at all? Are such blocs
permissible at all for Communists?

This question faces us squarely, and we have to answer it
here. There are some people -- our oppositionists -- who consider such blocs
impossible. The Central Committee of our Party, however, considers them
permissible.

The oppositionists have invoked here the name of Lenin. Let
us turn to Lenin:

"Capitalism would not be capitalism if the 'pure' proletariat
were not surrounded by a mass of exceedingly motley intermediate types between
the proletarian and the semi-proletarian (who earns his livelihood in part by
the sale of his labour power), between the semi-proletarian and the small
peasant (and the petty artisan, handicraft worker and small proprietor in
general), between the small peasant and the middle peasant, and so on, and if
the proletariat itself were not divided into more developed and less developed
strata, if it were not divided according to place of birth, trade, sometimes
according to religion, and so on. And from all this follows the necessity,
the absolute necessity for the
vanguard of the proletariat, for its class-conscious section, for the
Communist Party, to resort to manoeuvres, arrangements and compromises with
the various groups of proletarians, with the various parties of the workers
and small proprietors. The whole point lies in knowing how to apply
these tactics in order to raise, and not lower, the general
level of proletarian political consciousness, revolutionary spirit, and
ability to fight and win" (see Vol. XXV, p. 213).

And further:

"That the Hendersons, Clyneses, MacDonalds and Snowdens are
hopelessly reactionary is true. It is equally true that they want to take
power into their own hands (though, incidentally, they prefer a coalition with
the bourgeoisie), that they want to 'rule' on the old bourgeois lines, and
that when they do get into power they will unfailingly behave like the
Scheidemanns and Noskes. All that is true. But it by no means follows that to
support them is treachery to the revolution, but rather that in the interests
of the revolution the working-class revolutionaries should give these
gentlemen a certain amount of parliamentary support" (ibid., pp. 218-19).

Hence, it follows from what Lenin says that political
agreements, political blocs between the Communists and reactionary leaders of
the working class are quite possible and permissible.

Let Trotsky and Zinoviev bear this in mind.

But why are such agreements necessary at all?

In order to gain access to the working-class masses, in order
to enlighten them as to the reactionary character of their political and
trade-union leaders, in order to sever from the reactionary leaders the
sections of the working class that are moving to the Left and becoming
revolutionised, in order, consequently, to enhance the fighting ability of the
working class as a whole.

Accordingly, such blocs may be formed only on two basic
conditions, viz., that we are ensured freedom to criticise the reformist
leaders, and that the necessary conditions for severing the masses from the
reactionary leaders are ensured.

Here is what Lenin says on this score:

"The Communist Party should propose a 'compromise' to the
Hendersons and Snowdens, an election agreement: let us together fight the
alliance of Lloyd George and the Conservatives, let us divide the
parliamentary seats in proportion to the number of votes cast by the workers
for the Labour Party or for the Communists (not at the elections, but in a
special vote), and let us retain complete liberty of agitation,
propaganda and political activity. Without this last condition, of course, we
cannot agree to a bloc, for it would be treachery; the British Communists must
absolutely insist on and secure complete liberty to expose the Hendersons and
the Snowdens in the same way as (for fifteen years, 1903-17) the
Russian Bolsheviks insisted on and secured it in relation to the Russian
Hendersons and Snowdens, i.e., the Mensheviks" (see Vol. XXV, p. 223).

And further:

"The petty-bourgeois democrats (including the Mensheviks)
inevitably vacillate between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between
bourgeois democracy and the Soviet system, between reformism and revolutionism
between love for the workers and fear of the proletarian dictatorship, etc.
The correct tactics for the Communists must be to utilise these
vacillations, not to ignore them; and to utilise them calls for concessions to
those elements which turn towards the proletariat -- whenever and to the
extent that they turn towards the proletariat -- in addition to fighting those
who turn towards the bourgeoisie. The result of the application of correct
tactics is that Menshevism has disintegrated, and is increasingly
disintegrating in our country, that the stubbornly opportunist leaders
are being isolated, and that the best of the workers and the best
elements among the petty-bourgeois democrats are being brought into our camp
"

There you have the conditions without which no blocs or
agreements with reactionary trade-union leaders are permissible.

Let the opposition bear that also in mind.

The question arises: Is the policy of our trade unions in
conformity with the conditions Comrade Lenin speaks of?

I think that it is in full conformity. In the first place, we
have completely reserved for ourselves full freedom to criticise the reformist
leaders of the British working class and have availed ourselves of that
freedom to a degree unequalled by any other Communist Party in the world. In
the second place, we have gained access to the British working-class masses
and strengthened our ties with them. And in the third place, we are
effectively severing, and have already severed, whole sections of the British
working class from the reactionary leaders. I have in mind the rupture of the
miners with the leaders of the General Council.

Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev have studiously avoided saying
anything here about the conference of Russian and British miners in Berlin and
about their declaration9. Yet,
surely, that is a highly important fact of the recent period. Richardson,
Cook, Smith, Richards -- what are they? Opportunists, reformists. Some of them
are called Lefts, others Rights. All right! Which of them are more to the Left
is something history will decide. It is very difficult for us to make this out
just now -- the waters are dark and the clouds thick. But one thing is clear,
and that is that we have severed these vacillating reformist leaders, who have
the following of one million two hundred thousand striking miners, from the
General Council and linked them with our trade unions. Is that not a fact? Why
does the opposition say nothing about it?

Can it be that it does not rejoice at the success of our policy? And when
Citrine now writes that the General Council and he are agreed to the
Anglo-Russian Committee being convened, is that not a result of the fact that
Schwartz and Akulov have succeeded in winning over Cook and Richardson, and
that the General Council, being afraid of an open struggle with the
miners, was therefore forced to agree to a meeting of the Anglo-Russian
Committee? Who can deny that all these facts are evidence of the success of
our policy, that all this is evidence of the utter bankruptcy of the policy of
the opposition?

Hence, blocs with reactionary trade-union leaders are
permissible. They are necessary, on certain conditions. Freedom of criticism
is the first of them. Our Party is observing this condition. Severance of the
working-class masses from the reactionary leaders is another condition. Our
Party is observing this condition too. Our Party is right. The opposition is
wrong.

The question arises: What more do Zinoviev and Trotsky want
of us?

What they want is that our Soviet trade unions should either
break with the Anglo-Russian Committee, or that they, acting from here, from
Moscow, should overthrow the General Council. But that is stupid, comrades. To
demand that we, acting from Moscow, and by-passing the British workers'
trade unions, by-passing the British trade-union masses,
by-passing the British trade-union officials, skipping over them, that
we, acting from here, from Moscow, should overthrow the General Council -- is
not that stupid, comrades?

They demand a demonstrative rupture. Is it difficult to
understand that if we did that, the only result would be our own discomfiture?
Is it difficult to understand that in the event of a rupture we lose contact with the British trade-union movement,
we throw the British trade unions into the embraces of the Sassenbachs and
Oudegeests, we shake the foundations of the united front tactics, and we
delight the hearts of the Churchills and Thomases, without getting anything in
return except discomfiture?

Trotsky takes as the starting point of his policy of
theatrical gestures, not concrete human beings, not the concrete workers of
flesh and blood who are living and struggling in Britain, but some sort of
ideal and ethereal beings who are revolutionary from head to foot. Is it
difficult, however, to understand that only persons devoid of common sense
take ideal, ethereal beings as the starting point of their policy?

That is why we think that the policy of theatrical gestures,
the policy of overthrowing the General Council from Moscow, by the efforts of
Moscow alone, is a ridiculous and adventurist policy.

The policy of gestures has been the characteristic feature of
Trotsky's whole policy ever since he joined our Party. We had a first
application of this policy at the time of the Brest Peace, when Trotsky
refused to sign the German-Russian peace agreement and countered it with a
theatrical gesture, believing that a gesture was enough to rouse the
proletarians of all countries against imperialism. That was a policy of
gestures. And, comrades, you know very well how dear that gesture cost us.
Into whose hands did that theatrical gesture play? Into the hands of the
imperialists, the Mensheviks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and all who were
then trying to strangle the Soviet power, which at that time was not firmly
established.

Now we are asked to adopt the same policy of theatrical
gestures towards the Anglo-Russian Committee. They demand a demonstrative
and theatrical rupture. But who would benefit from that
theatrical gesture? Churchill and Chamberlain Sassenbach and Oudegeest. That
is what they want. That is what they are waiting for. They, the Sassenbachs
and Oudegeests, want us to make a demonstrative break with the British labour
movement and thus render things easier for Amsterdam. They, the Churchills and
Chamberlains, want the break in order to make it easier for them to launch
intervention to provide them with a moral argument in favour of the
interventionists.

These are the people into whose hands our oppositionists are
playing.

No, comrades, we cannot adopt this adventurist course.

But such is the fate of "ultra-Left" phrasemongers. Their
phrases are Leftist, but in practice it turns out that they are aiding the
enemies of the working class. You go in on the Left and come out on the Right.

No, comrades, we shall not adopt this policy of theatrical
gestures -- we shall no more adopt it today than we did at the time of
the Brest Peace. We shall not adopt it because we do not want our Party to
become a plaything in the hands of our enemies.

Notes

1.
The Anglo-Russian Unity Committee was set up on the initiative of the A.U.C.C.T.U. at an Anglo-Soviet trade-union conference in London, April 6-8, 1925. It consisted of the chairmen and secretaries of the A.U.C.C.T.U. and the T.U.C. General Council and another three members from each of these organisations. The committee ceased to exist in the autumn of 1927 owing to the treacherous policy of the reactionary leaders of the British trade unions.

2. The joint plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission, C.P.S.U.(B.) was held July 14-23, 1926. It discussed a communication of the Political Bureau on its decisions in connection with the British general strike and the events in Poland and China, and reports on the results of the elections to the Soviets, on the case of Lashevich and others, and on Party unity, housing development, and the grain procurement campaign. At the plenum J. V. Stalin spoke on the Political Bureau’s communication concerning the decisions taken by it in connection with the events in Britain, Poland and China, on the report of the Presidium of the C.C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.) on the case of Lashevich and others, on Party unity and on other questions. The plenum approved the activities of the Political Bureau of the C.C. and of the C.P.S.U.(B.) delegation in the E.C.C.I. on the international question, and adopted a number of decisions on important questions of state and economic affairs, inner-Party life and the conditions of the workers. The plenum expelled Zinoviev from the Political Bureau of the C.C. (For the resolutions of the plenum, see Resolutions and Decisions of C.P.S.U. Congresses, Conferences and Central Committee Plenums, Part II, 1953, pp. 148-69.)

3.
This refers to the Amsterdam Trade Union International, founded in July 1919 at an international congress in Amsterdam. It included the reformist trade unions of the majority of the West-European countries and the American Federation of Labour. The Amsterdam International pursued a reformist policy, openly collaborated with the bourgeoisie in the International Labour Office and various commissions of the League of Nations, opposed a united front in the labour movement, and adopted a hostile attitude towards the Soviet Union, as a result of which its influence in the labour movement gradually declined. During the Second World War the Amsterdam International practically ceased to function, and, in December 1945, in connection with the foundation of the World Federation of Trade Unions, it was liquidated.

4. Sassenbach and Oudegeest were secretaries of the reformist Amsterdam Trade Union International and leaders of its Right wing.

7. The “Workers’ Opposition”—an anti-Party anarcho-syndicalist group in the R.C.P.(B.), headed by Shlyapnikov, Medvedyev and others. It was formed in (he latter half of 1920 and fought the Leninist line of the Party. The Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.) condemned the “Workers’ Opposition” and decided that propaganda of the ideas of the anarcho-syndicalist deviation was incompatible with membership of the Communist Party. The remnants of the defeated “Workers’ Opposition” subsequently joined the counter-revolutionary Trotskyists.

8.Sotsialistichesky Vestnik (Socialist Courier)—a magazine, organ of the Menshevik whiteguard émigrés, founded by Martov in February 1921. Until March 1933 it was published in Berlin, and from May of that year until June 1940 in Paris. It is now published in America and is the mouthpiece of the most reactionary imperialist circles.

9. The conference of representatives of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain and the Miners’ Union of the U.S.S.R. was held in Berlin on July 7, 1926. It discussed continuation of the campaign in aid of the locked-out British miners. It adopted a declaration “To the Workers of the World,” appealing for energetic support of the British miners and it expressed the need for an early meeting of the Anglo-Russian Unity Committee. The conference decided on the expediency of setting up an Anglo-Soviet Miners’ Committee for maintaining mutual contact and for achieving united revolutionary action of the Miners’ Union of the U.S.S.R. and the International Miners’ Federation.